The Trump administration is proposing to relax long-standing radiation safety requirements for NPPs, arguing that the changes would reduce regulatory burdens accelerate revival of the US nuclear industry.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed a sweeping rule change to eliminate the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) standard. This regulatory overhaul is in line with President Trump’s May 2025 Executive Order (EO)14300, Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, intended to force a sweeping overhaul of federal nuclear oversight. It directs a “rushed reconsideration” of the science guiding radiation standards.
The core philosophy of ALARA is that any radiation exposure carries some level of risk. Therefore, simply keeping radiation levels below the official legal limits is not enough. Under ALARA, facilities must actively take every reasonable step to keep exposures as close to zero as possible. “Reasonably” means improvements must be balanced against practical factors like financial cost, technology limits, and the societal benefit of the activity (such as running a nuclear power plant or performing a life-saving medical scan).
To achieve ALARA, radiation safety programmes rely on three basic pillars:
- Time – minimise the amount of time spent near a radiation source to reduce the total dose received.
- Distance – maximise the physical distance from the source, as radiation intensity drops sharply the further away you move.
- Shielding – use appropriate barriers (such as lead aprons, concrete walls, or specialised water tanks) to block or absorb the radiation.
The technical details of NRS’s proposal highlight how it alters existing radiation policies. NRC is reportedly not abandoning radiation caps entirely. Instead, it aims to replace the highly subjective “reasonable” threshold with a structured, data-driven system.
The agency is introducing definite numerical targets to manage radiation rather than open-ended minimisation mandates. Nuclear operators and medical fields must implement increasingly aggressive mitigation strategies as exposures near maximum boundaries.
NRC estimates that eliminating ALARA compliance and updating ageing monitoring rules will save the industry roughly $9.5m annually. NRC has chosen to keep the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model intact. The LNT model assumes that any exposure to ionising radiation carries a proportional risk of biological harm. The EO originally labelled the LNT model “irrational” and pushed for its removal. However, by retaining it, NRC maintains the foundational consensus that there is no completely safe radiation threshold, even as they change how low-level exposures are managed.
The announcement has sparked intense debate between industry proponents and safety advocates. The nuclear Industry and NRC leadership argues that it removes costly, ambiguous legal hurdles that delay new reactor approval. It streamlines licensing without sacrificing core safety parameters and establishes clear, objective regulatory targets for technological innovation.
Safety Advocates warn that removing ALARA could lead to higher permitted radiation doses. They argue the change prioritises industry profits over long-term public health and express concern over a broader weakening of nuclear plant security protocols.
In short, NRC proposes to remove references to the ALARA principle, which rests on the LNT model’s assessment of risks from very low doses of radiation, from its regulations. Instead, NRC “would apply a less-subjective, graded approach to managing doses below regulatory limits”.
